Was the Romeo and Juliet of the 90s really that bad?
Yes. Zefirelli or bust. Both lack all the sexual implications of the original play, but the remake of the 90s simply sucks. Leonardo DiCaprio?! I beg your pardon? Admit it. You want another remake with the cast from twilight, don't ya?
See the final cut, where he sees the unicorn while not asleep and as an origami before his door when fleeing with her and see the interview of ridley Scott when the final cut came out.
There are no legit other releases of Blade Runner. There is no Matrix sequel.
Let's not give our hopes up yet. He could make a good sequel/prequel/whatever. If not, then it didn't happen.
There *is* a reaction time. There *is no* driver with magical foresight what might happen next when it was not predictable by logic and perception.
Take a deep breath. In. Out. Are you calmer now? What would happen to you if you if you were going 160 km/h and someone hit you from behind going 165 km/h? "Speed kills" is said all the time in the US. There are many people who think that a car is uncontrolable at over 100 mph. It would be impossible to even drive in a straight line at 160 km/h. I noticed you didn't address my comments that speed isn't unsafe. You know that you can go faster without dying. So you are more comfortable with it. You are no better than the others. You want what you find acceptable and comfortable to be legal, and everything else to be illegal. The reasons change, but human nature never does. In regular traffic, you are least safe when you are being followed at the recommended distance.
OMFG.
You don't get it.
If the car before me is crashing into someone, I would crash into him. There is no remote chance to survive a crash at this speed. If he is before me about 1 second and hits the brake very badly (or worse: Assisted by the tech) and I crash into him, the speed difference is likely to kill me. And him, if he would have made it to a halt in the last second otherwise.
Are you suggesting to connect all the cars on the motorway in order to synchronise the braking?
The Truck behind me would simply kill me, if he ist too close, because of inertia. The mass of my car would have come to a halt, but this truck will not. If the car behind me is big and bad, like, a mercedes, he would kill me, even though I would have survived w/o him following so close behind me.
Speed alone does not kill, as long as the weather makes the speed controllable as opposed to a bad weather day. To be more precise: On a mixed weather day, because people tend to continue their speed for too long a time after the rain or fog or snow hits them. With really bad weather, only stupid people drive fast - and die.
But low distances also kill. Every time. On a German motorway. You don't have to take science for it. Try it out. Spend one year in Germany, drive often and watch for yourself. People here mostly don't decrase the distance because after a bit of experience, you learn that the distance saved your life. A dozen times. The rest will be brought to justice. A truck driver below the recommended distance should not be fined. He should go for jail. For. A. Very. Long. Time.
He is willing to kill me and others to meet his timeline. He or the guy at 220 km/h driving a mercedes can not avoid inertia and mass and human reaction time. Nobody could. It's simple physics.
Of course speed does not kill. Otherwise we would all die - the earth has quite a speed, you know.
It's the difference between two speeds that mostly kills on the streets. We call it energy. Above 50 km/h even airbags and seat belts will not save you from harm. But you could avoid following suit in one of our mass accidents if you simply get a few metres more between you and the guy before you. There is this thing called braking. I do that, bevore it comes to a crash. Because I usually have enough reaction time. If a kid hops on the street to the guy before me, he would try everything to stop. If I would have followed suit, I would get his car and the kid a few more metres because of my mass. He possibly didn't do anything wrong, it was not enough time. But I increased the severety of the accidents by hurting them both. Think about me driving a mercedes or a truck in the city. They have mass. You don't seem to understand the basic rules of physics. Not to worry. We have jails for people like you.
Kill someone because of low distance and face the consequences. Don't believe me. Don't believe science. Don't believe studys. Just do an accident and hurt people because of low distances and go to jail, but please try to kill someone old, sick of cancer, who was planning to kill himself in a few hours anyways. Don't try this on good and decent people or on kids. Thank you.
Listen, pal. I live in Germany and we have no speed limit. I could go as fast as I like provided the road is clear. I did my share of 160, 180 or even 220 km/h on a few occasions. But:
1) I always look for the weather. Even 80 km/h is too fast if it rains cats and dogs 2) I always take into account the idiot that pulls over to pass a truck without checking first 3) I always, always, always leave enough room to the guy in front of me. Rule of thumb: 3 seconds, I mostly give him 4 or 5 or more. 1 second: Reaction time. Rest: The time between adjusting how fast he is decelerating and the severity of the reason he is doing so. Assume a flat tire. Assume an animal. Assume a traffic jam just after the hill or the curve. Assume he is crashing into the last car at the traffic jam. Assume there is someone going in the wrong direction.
It always comes down to this: Reaction time.
Looking out for situations in the distance that might occur soon need space between you and the car in front of you.
That is why you give the other guy enough space. And yourself enough time. This is a life saver. No space between you and the guy in front of you is murder with contingent intent. Period.
You may have found ONE study that says otherwise. But you know what? In science, the guy that says something everybody else calls bullshit even after years of studies usually IS wrong. There is a climate change, you americans start to get a taste of extreme weather. There *is* a reaction time. There *is no* driver with magical foresight what might happen next when it was not predictable by logic and perception.
I don't know. To me it's very much less distracting using the bluetooth in my radio to communicate rather then having to crasp the telephone with my shoulders and my back or to use the less effective hands free of the speaker and the mic of my iPhone.
On a plus side, if I navigate with it, I hear the driving instructions over my car speakers while listening to music streamed from my iPhone. Unless I have disabled bluetooth to spare battery life it mostly spares me a lot of hassle and makes it easier to talk and drive.
Sarching for the phone, unlocking it, starting it, searching for the "favorite" and dial *is* distrating. Searching for the phone, longing, answering the call is also distracting.
And the sound is better. And I can clearly hear what the other is saying. And he is clearly hearing me, because the mic is adjusted towards my. And it is relatively cheap for a good radio that could easily play iPods or USB-devices beside the blutooth streaming of my iPhone. I could switch sources (USB/iPod, bluetooth, Radio, CD) and still receive a call over the hands free in my radio.
This is like 150 $. You pay more for a car. In Germany I certainly paid more for my licence. You pay more taxes than that. You pay ten times the price for decent audio equipment and stuff.
Could you please provide an explanation why it is so harshly unfair to buy such a device except "I hate rules, even the understandable ones"?
No. It's just that you scream and run around wanting 3D to stop even for those who happen to like 3D and have no problem with it. For those who DO have a problem with 3D it's simple:
- Every 3D movie at home could be seen in 2D, even with a 3D TV set. - Every 3D movie in the theatres could be seen using 2D glasses, should there be no 2D alternative.
It's not like someone sues you for watching movies in 2D. You are free to leave 3D alone. But let the rest of us have fun.
Re:i posted a story about this a few months ago
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 0
Sorry for posting as anonymous coward, it was me, but the cookie at this machine was lost...
i'm not a dinosaur. i'm a primate. i have binocular vision. my eyes converge and focus in parallel
are you telling me you are immune to the basic limitations of primate biomechanics?
Simply put: I focus on what is in focus at the movie. If I look at something else, that is out of focus, I don't mind it being not focusable.
To me, that is not hard nor is it impossible. You may be a primate. But I am quite shure you get extinct. Just like the people warning us of trains faster than 20 mph (we will all die!) and the ones that critizised the end of silent movies. Or anything else they did not grow up with.
I don't complain that you don't like 3D. I simply can not stand the hatred and time you invest in fighting it. There are even glasses that let you watch 3D movies in 2D, should you feel the need. Every 3D set at home let's you play the movie in 2D. There is no one forcing 3D down your throat. But please let the others continue to have fun. Happy dying out.
A large potion? What age? What digital equipment? Real Nerds and Geeks? I know a few and they don't agree with you. If someone has a 20' TV to watch movies at home, he propably won't like 3D movies, because he does not like 2D films enough to invest in a decent TV Set in the first place (provided, he could - no offence to poor people intended).
Those people or people with lame PCs AND no gaming console are propably not the target group for 3D movies, you know...
This may be the case. Like there is not only one rapist, child abuser, murderer, thief and kingpin. But to ME that does not mean that the prosecution of those bastards should stop. It's bad enough the government is far to excessive in their invasion of the private lifes of people who are no criminals because there might (!) be a case somewhere. But a news corporation that invades the privacy of other people just because their completely legal activities might be news is despicable. The only place for such "journalists" is behind bars.
Really. Just use Google Video search, with SafeSearch turned off. Porn has gone ad-supported, like all other forms of content.
And ads - especially the massive ads on pr0n sites - suddenly stopped being annoying? Or containing malware? And they suddenly provide all the features other paid sites have? Either you have found some really secret free pr0n nobody else has seen, or you actually can not compare free and paid content.
(If only the music industry would figure that out.)
Oh, they do, at least in Europe. But I prefer the ad free version of spotify/simfy, because I don't like the ads and restrictions. The music industry is still evil, but the next target should be the film industry, because they still use DRM on a regular basis.
Irony: commenting of the ease-of-use and security of using paid pr0n service in discussion about significant compromise of userid, email address, and passwords of a paid pr0n service.
Nope. The article proves that one of those sites has been compromised. It does not prove that all or most sites have been hacked. Besides: The password I only use there, but to me this is standard procedure on nearly every site. But the mailaddress is my real name mailaddress, so someone could make it known I use pr0n. Big deal.
Avoiding all the malware on free sites and saving the time spent on finding what I want to me is worth the money. I don't know about others, but I like to spend my time other than browsing and searching for free pr0n. I could spend it on browsing slashdot, play DNF (finally! After 14 years!) or getting off streaming the pr0n I instantly found using said site while others are still searching.
To me, that is worth some money. To others, it seems like it is not. But this does not make them Übergeeks, just people witout money.
I do. Because free pr0n is too much hassle. I know it exists and I know how to obtain it. But the paid service is easier to use and more secure. P2P and binary newsgroups are nice for moviez, but not for pr0n. And the tube sites? Insecure and not the perfect quality I demand. No, to me it makes sense to pay per view on a big pr0n site, because I get better service without the security problems - as long as no third party hacks the site, te information is secure, because it is in the site owners best interest to handle it as a serious business.
- Does not come with spyware and stuff - Has all the stuff sorted and searchable - Uses pay per view, so I pay only for the time I watch
Of course there is no chance in hell I would use my businessaddress or the same password I use on other sites. But why should I bother using crappy sites that try everything to rip my money and my personal information, when I could use a normal business service that has an interest in me coming back and is until now proven to be secure?
Why should I care about free stuff when paying gives me better service?
I am single - again:) - and I am allowed to use pr0n. There is nothing bad about that. I don't use the site TFA mentions, but to me it is perfectly reasonable to pay for pr0n. I don't waste time with the free stuff to find the pr0n I like. I don't need to think about security. I don't need to think if the file is what it says it were.
Of course. An infected machine compromises my privacy and endangers my security. With the Information on my computers like passwords etc. all hell could break lose.
I have been compromised 2 times:
Once by a Wordvirus stemming from a secure source some 10 years ago, when CompuServe was cool. Saving normal.dot? I'm screwed. But it was easy to detect and easy to remove.
2nd when I setup a win 2k machine for a friend. Before I could patch it and install a firewall it got infected. Downloaded all patches to a different machine, burned it to a CD and restartet from scratch, you never know.
If I were infected, I would reinstall my whole system from my backups and if this fails from my original CDs. And if this fails I would get professional help.
Friends and family is allowed to skip the above steps and ask me - but only if they provide original CDs (assuming windows here) and keys and let me do it how it's supposed to be done:
From scratch User is user - you don't fuck around w/o protection against STDs, you don't surf and work with administrative rights No - you won't EVER install anything from an untrusted source. During installation, disable every program not from the same company. In most cases every free program that is not OSS, is suspicious.
Are you willing to pay for your AV-product every year? If yes - chose. If no, it's MSE for you, because I don't want you to ask me what this avira popup is.
Come on, guys - you have no right to spam or DOS the world because you're an ignorant computer novice. You don't have the right to drive an unsave car an kill others because you don't know how to drive or how to repair your fucking car!
Learn how to drive and get your car fixed! Until you're done, leave the fucking roads everybody else uses, you are a threat. Period.
You agreed to use a car that is save. No matter what you pay for the road - until you're car is fixed you are not allowed to drive this car outside of your private property - because you're not the only person on this planet. There are some rules. Next.
"The rootkit can be so configured (not providing instructions here) that it is effectively hidden from most methods of detection by active user."
OK, but: It must be started first. And it must circumvent the AV-product you're using. And it must circumvent the Firewall (asking you for permission via admin credentials)...
A lot of ifs...
"It can very easily modify user accessible binaries, so that any UAC prompts appear to come from a trusted source."
Please explain. What is a user accessible binary? An executable that can be WRITTEN to by the restricted user?
USB-sticks and non-standard installations, OK. But "Joe the restricted user" should not be able to do that.
Even if ASLR and DEP aren't working perfectly: Why someone building an AV-product does NOT use these features in order to make it harder for the attacker to circumvent the AV solution is beyond me.
Which Google-search are you referring to? The one I did only resulted in a "rootkit" that could RUN without administrative rights.
"Easyly be infected"? It runs as a normal program. You kill the process, it's gone - as long as you don't give it administrator rights. It tries to install itself as a service, but will start as a normal process if that fails.
"Rootkit"? "Infected"?
Without administrative rights it's neither, if I red it correct.
You just mentioned a real threat. Don't let us digg it up. So there is a malware that meets all of these requirements:
a) Infects a system by simply visiting a webpage and clicking harmless looking buttons and links in a recent browser b) Circumvents the users restricted rights and gains administrative / system rights c) Infects the machine without any user interaction d) is not detected by AV software
Yes? No? Which threat is it, I'd like to know, please provide a link. Or maybe... you are a little bit blinded by your hatred against everything Microsoft?
I can understand that you can't make a software secure against a poorly chosen password from a dumb user. But I won't accept a software that allow buffer overrun to compromise it's security! Or one that open port for poorly protected service for all internet to access without the knowledge of the user that it even existed!( or worst, the user know about it, but have no way to prevent it short of disconnecting from the internet!
So could someone with some knowledge please actually READ the darned document and say something relevant about it?
To me it looks like common sense practices:
- Make the software so it could work without administration priviledges except for certain actions. It should work under UAC with a non administrative account. To me this makes sense. 90 % of all security problems in Windows > XP are gone once you don't work with administrative priviledges, IIRC.
- Software is not allowed to make the system more insecure without the users consent. No Firewallchanges, no new ports or services, no enabling of services without the users consent
- don't use code which is already proven to be insecure
- etc.
About the rants securitywise: It is not like everything M$ made in the last decade was a step in the wrong direction.
- starting with XP, the whole enduser system was 32 bit and used a real security model with different types of priviledges. It was a real hell to work as a user without administrative rights, but it was possible.
- starting with XP SP2, they implemented a tool to watch if the system has some basic secure settings, the firewall was activated by default and M$ nagged every user to use an AV-product, which makes sense (as a last line of defense).
- starting with Vista, the user still has administrative rights by default, but UAC tries to minimize the threat. The side effect: In order to work under UAC, the software must ask nicely for adminnistrative rights for certain tasks. Thus software generally is more fit to work without administrative rights.
- M$ made MSE available, which *is* a good free AV-product according to different tests. Avira might be as good, but its Nagscreen every day is really annoying...
- With Win 7, UAC works better and new users are non-admin by default
I completely see your point about the insecure bullshit they did before XP SP2 to all end users or the ways in how they tried to maintain their monopoly. But to me a Windows system is not per se insecure provided someone uses some basic precautions:
- Keep software and OS up to date (PSI?)
OKOK, it is far more easy to keep a standard Linux up to date than the standard Windows because every company uses it's own update mechanism. But it is possible...
- Don't work with administrative rights
No Linux user would work with administrative rights permanently, so...
- Use strong passwords in all sensitive areas
NAT, Adminpasswort, Serverpasswords,...
- Use your brain before installing software or typing in your administrator's user credentials
Helps...
- Use your brain on links
Helps..
- As a last line of defense (not he only one) use an AV-product
And yes, I know that linux is more secure for a lot of reasons. But ignoring free guidelines like the one from M$ to develop more secure code for Windows sounds strange to me. It might be that there are better recommendations, but isn't it worth a read until someone comes up with arguments why this document is stupid and not worth reading?
1) There are 5+ people inside the voting room at all times. The are shown the empty box, they are shown the plomp to seal it.
They control it all the time. They are from different parties and there are some additional helpers.
A box that one could turn into a chess computer in seconds without anybody noticing is far less secure that the good old system were everyone looks out for everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Was the Romeo and Juliet of the 90s really that bad?
Yes. Zefirelli or bust. Both lack all the sexual implications of the original play, but the remake of the 90s simply sucks. Leonardo DiCaprio?! I beg your pardon? Admit it. You want another remake with the cast from twilight, don't ya?
The question is answered.
See the final cut, where he sees the unicorn while not asleep and as an origami before his door when fleeing with her and see the interview of ridley Scott when the final cut came out.
There are no legit other releases of Blade Runner. There is no Matrix sequel.
Let's not give our hopes up yet. He could make a good sequel/prequel/whatever. If not, then it didn't happen.
There *is* a reaction time. There *is no* driver with magical foresight what might happen next when it was not predictable by logic and perception.
Take a deep breath. In. Out. Are you calmer now? What would happen to you if you if you were going 160 km/h and someone hit you from behind going 165 km/h? "Speed kills" is said all the time in the US. There are many people who think that a car is uncontrolable at over 100 mph. It would be impossible to even drive in a straight line at 160 km/h. I noticed you didn't address my comments that speed isn't unsafe. You know that you can go faster without dying. So you are more comfortable with it. You are no better than the others. You want what you find acceptable and comfortable to be legal, and everything else to be illegal. The reasons change, but human nature never does. In regular traffic, you are least safe when you are being followed at the recommended distance.
OMFG.
You don't get it.
If the car before me is crashing into someone, I would crash into him. There is no remote chance to survive a crash at this speed. If he is before me about 1 second and hits the brake very badly (or worse: Assisted by the tech) and I crash into him, the speed difference is likely to kill me. And him, if he would have made it to a halt in the last second otherwise.
Are you suggesting to connect all the cars on the motorway in order to synchronise the braking?
The Truck behind me would simply kill me, if he ist too close, because of inertia. The mass of my car would have come to a halt, but this truck will not. If the car behind me is big and bad, like, a mercedes, he would kill me, even though I would have survived w/o him following so close behind me.
Speed alone does not kill, as long as the weather makes the speed controllable as opposed to a bad weather day. To be more precise: On a mixed weather day, because people tend to continue their speed for too long a time after the rain or fog or snow hits them. With really bad weather, only stupid people drive fast - and die.
But low distances also kill. Every time. On a German motorway. You don't have to take science for it. Try it out. Spend one year in Germany, drive often and watch for yourself. People here mostly don't decrase the distance because after a bit of experience, you learn that the distance saved your life. A dozen times. The rest will be brought to justice. A truck driver below the recommended distance should not be fined. He should go for jail. For. A. Very. Long. Time.
He is willing to kill me and others to meet his timeline. He or the guy at 220 km/h driving a mercedes can not avoid inertia and mass and human reaction time. Nobody could. It's simple physics.
Of course speed does not kill. Otherwise we would all die - the earth has quite a speed, you know.
It's the difference between two speeds that mostly kills on the streets. We call it energy. Above 50 km/h even airbags and seat belts will not save you from harm. But you could avoid following suit in one of our mass accidents if you simply get a few metres more between you and the guy before you. There is this thing called braking. I do that, bevore it comes to a crash. Because I usually have enough reaction time. If a kid hops on the street to the guy before me, he would try everything to stop. If I would have followed suit, I would get his car and the kid a few more metres because of my mass. He possibly didn't do anything wrong, it was not enough time. But I increased the severety of the accidents by hurting them both. Think about me driving a mercedes or a truck in the city. They have mass. You don't seem to understand the basic rules of physics. Not to worry. We have jails for people like you.
Kill someone because of low distance and face the consequences. Don't believe me. Don't believe science. Don't believe studys. Just do an accident and hurt people because of low distances and go to jail, but please try to kill someone old, sick of cancer, who was planning to kill himself in a few hours anyways. Don't try this on good and decent people or on kids. Thank you.
Listen, pal. I live in Germany and we have no speed limit. I could go as fast as I like provided the road is clear. I did my share of 160, 180 or even 220 km/h on a few occasions. But:
1) I always look for the weather. Even 80 km/h is too fast if it rains cats and dogs
2) I always take into account the idiot that pulls over to pass a truck without checking first
3) I always, always, always leave enough room to the guy in front of me. Rule of thumb: 3 seconds, I mostly give him 4 or 5 or more. 1 second: Reaction time. Rest: The time between adjusting how fast he is decelerating and the severity of the reason he is doing so. Assume a flat tire. Assume an animal. Assume a traffic jam just after the hill or the curve. Assume he is crashing into the last car at the traffic jam. Assume there is someone going in the wrong direction.
It always comes down to this: Reaction time.
Looking out for situations in the distance that might occur soon need space between you and the car in front of you.
That is why you give the other guy enough space. And yourself enough time. This is a life saver. No space between you and the guy in front of you is murder with contingent intent. Period.
You may have found ONE study that says otherwise. But you know what? In science, the guy that says something everybody else calls bullshit even after years of studies usually IS wrong. There is a climate change, you americans start to get a taste of extreme weather. There *is* a reaction time. There *is no* driver with magical foresight what might happen next when it was not predictable by logic and perception.
Moron.
I don't know. To me it's very much less distracting using the bluetooth in my radio to communicate rather then having to crasp the telephone with my shoulders and my back or to use the less effective hands free of the speaker and the mic of my iPhone.
On a plus side, if I navigate with it, I hear the driving instructions over my car speakers while listening to music streamed from my iPhone. Unless I have disabled bluetooth to spare battery life it mostly spares me a lot of hassle and makes it easier to talk and drive.
Sarching for the phone, unlocking it, starting it, searching for the "favorite" and dial *is* distrating. Searching for the phone, longing, answering the call is also distracting.
And the sound is better. And I can clearly hear what the other is saying. And he is clearly hearing me, because the mic is adjusted towards my. And it is relatively cheap for a good radio that could easily play iPods or USB-devices beside the blutooth streaming of my iPhone. I could switch sources (USB/iPod, bluetooth, Radio, CD) and still receive a call over the hands free in my radio.
This is like 150 $. You pay more for a car. In Germany I certainly paid more for my licence. You pay more taxes than that. You pay ten times the price for decent audio equipment and stuff.
Could you please provide an explanation why it is so harshly unfair to buy such a device except "I hate rules, even the understandable ones"?
No. It's just that you scream and run around wanting 3D to stop even for those who happen to like 3D and have no problem with it. For those who DO have a problem with 3D it's simple:
- Every 3D movie at home could be seen in 2D, even with a 3D TV set.
- Every 3D movie in the theatres could be seen using 2D glasses, should there be no 2D alternative.
It's not like someone sues you for watching movies in 2D. You are free to leave 3D alone. But let the rest of us have fun.
Sorry for posting as anonymous coward, it was me, but the cookie at this machine was lost...
i'm not a dinosaur. i'm a primate. i have binocular vision. my eyes converge and focus in parallel
are you telling me you are immune to the basic limitations of primate biomechanics?
Simply put: I focus on what is in focus at the movie. If I look at something else, that is out of focus, I don't mind it being not focusable.
To me, that is not hard nor is it impossible. You may be a primate. But I am quite shure you get extinct. Just like the people warning us of trains faster than 20 mph (we will all die!) and the ones that critizised the end of silent movies. Or anything else they did not grow up with.
I don't complain that you don't like 3D. I simply can not stand the hatred and time you invest in fighting it. There are even glasses that let you watch 3D movies in 2D, should you feel the need. Every 3D set at home let's you play the movie in 2D. There is no one forcing 3D down your throat. But please let the others continue to have fun. Happy dying out.
http://www.3dtouch.de/3d-brillen/3d-brillenaufsatz/44-3d-brillenclip-fuer-kino-3dtouch-5501.html
A large potion? What age? What digital equipment? Real Nerds and Geeks? I know a few and they don't agree with you. If someone has a 20' TV to watch movies at home, he propably won't like 3D movies, because he does not like 2D films enough to invest in a decent TV Set in the first place (provided, he could - no offence to poor people intended).
Those people or people with lame PCs AND no gaming console are propably not the target group for 3D movies, you know...
+1
This may be the case. Like there is not only one rapist, child abuser, murderer, thief and kingpin. But to ME that does not mean that the prosecution of those bastards should stop. It's bad enough the government is far to excessive in their invasion of the private lifes of people who are no criminals because there might (!) be a case somewhere. But a news corporation that invades the privacy of other people just because their completely legal activities might be news is despicable. The only place for such "journalists" is behind bars.
Really. Just use Google Video search, with SafeSearch turned off. Porn has gone ad-supported, like all other forms of content.
And ads - especially the massive ads on pr0n sites - suddenly stopped being annoying? Or containing malware? And they suddenly provide all the features other paid sites have? Either you have found some really secret free pr0n nobody else has seen, or you actually can not compare free and paid content.
(If only the music industry would figure that out.)
Oh, they do, at least in Europe. But I prefer the ad free version of spotify/simfy, because I don't like the ads and restrictions. The music industry is still evil, but the next target should be the film industry, because they still use DRM on a regular basis.
Irony: commenting of the ease-of-use and security of using paid pr0n service in discussion about significant compromise of userid, email address, and passwords of a paid pr0n service.
Nope. The article proves that one of those sites has been compromised. It does not prove that all or most sites have been hacked. Besides: The password I only use there, but to me this is standard procedure on nearly every site. But the mailaddress is my real name mailaddress, so someone could make it known I use pr0n. Big deal.
Avoiding all the malware on free sites and saving the time spent on finding what I want to me is worth the money. I don't know about others, but I like to spend my time other than browsing and searching for free pr0n. I could spend it on browsing slashdot, play DNF (finally! After 14 years!) or getting off streaming the pr0n I instantly found using said site while others are still searching.
To me, that is worth some money. To others, it seems like it is not. But this does not make them Übergeeks, just people witout money.
I do. Because free pr0n is too much hassle. I know it exists and I know how to obtain it. But the paid service is easier to use and more secure. P2P and binary newsgroups are nice for moviez, but not for pr0n. And the tube sites? Insecure and not the perfect quality I demand. No, to me it makes sense to pay per view on a big pr0n site, because I get better service without the security problems - as long as no third party hacks the site, te information is secure, because it is in the site owners best interest to handle it as a serious business.
Let's see. The site I use:
- Does not come with spyware and stuff
- Has all the stuff sorted and searchable
- Uses pay per view, so I pay only for the time I watch
Of course there is no chance in hell I would use my businessaddress or the same password I use on other sites. But why should I bother using crappy sites that try everything to rip my money and my personal information, when I could use a normal business service that has an interest in me coming back and is until now proven to be secure?
Why should I care about free stuff when paying gives me better service?
I am single - again :) - and I am allowed to use pr0n. There is nothing bad about that. I don't use the site TFA mentions, but to me it is perfectly reasonable to pay for pr0n. I don't waste time with the free stuff to find the pr0n I like. I don't need to think about security. I don't need to think if the file is what it says it were.
Of course. An infected machine compromises my privacy and endangers my security. With the Information on my computers like passwords etc. all hell could break lose.
I have been compromised 2 times:
Once by a Wordvirus stemming from a secure source some 10 years ago, when CompuServe was cool. Saving normal.dot? I'm screwed. But it was easy to detect and easy to remove.
2nd when I setup a win 2k machine for a friend. Before I could patch it and install a firewall it got infected. Downloaded all patches to a different machine, burned it to a CD and restartet from scratch, you never know.
If I were infected, I would reinstall my whole system from my backups and if this fails from my original CDs. And if this fails I would get professional help.
Friends and family is allowed to skip the above steps and ask me - but only if they provide original CDs (assuming windows here) and keys and let me do it how it's supposed to be done:
From scratch
User is user - you don't fuck around w/o protection against STDs, you don't surf and work with administrative rights
No - you won't EVER install anything from an untrusted source. During installation, disable every program not from the same company. In most cases every free program that is not OSS, is suspicious.
Are you willing to pay for your AV-product every year? If yes - chose. If no, it's MSE for you, because I don't want you to ask me what this avira popup is.
Come on, guys - you have no right to spam or DOS the world because you're an ignorant computer novice. You don't have the right to drive an unsave car an kill others because you don't know how to drive or how to repair your fucking car!
Learn how to drive and get your car fixed! Until you're done, leave the fucking roads everybody else uses, you are a threat. Period.
You agreed to use a car that is save. No matter what you pay for the road - until you're car is fixed you are not allowed to drive this car outside of your private property - because you're not the only person on this planet. There are some rules. Next.
Come on mods - it's from AC, I know - but it IS funny.
"The rootkit can be so configured (not providing instructions here) that it is effectively hidden from most methods of detection by active user."
OK, but: It must be started first. And it must circumvent the AV-product you're using. And it must circumvent the Firewall (asking you for permission via admin credentials)...
A lot of ifs...
"It can very easily modify user accessible binaries, so that any UAC prompts appear to come from a trusted source."
Please explain. What is a user accessible binary? An executable that can be WRITTEN to by the restricted user?
USB-sticks and non-standard installations, OK. But "Joe the restricted user" should not be able to do that.
And this omnipotent rootkit does all of that?
DEP is configured correctly in Win 7 by default. And isn't there a funktion called ASLR that should prevent the attacker to know were to strike?
Concerning these features, I find these findings... strange:
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2010/08/anti-virus-products-mostly-ignore-windows-security-features/
Even if ASLR and DEP aren't working perfectly: Why someone building an AV-product does NOT use these features in order to make it harder for the attacker to circumvent the AV solution is beyond me.
Which Google-search are you referring to? The one I did only resulted in a "rootkit" that could RUN without administrative rights.
"Easyly be infected"? It runs as a normal program. You kill the process, it's gone - as long as you don't give it administrator rights. It tries to install itself as a service, but will start as a normal process if that fails.
"Rootkit"? "Infected"?
Without administrative rights it's neither, if I red it correct.
You just mentioned a real threat. Don't let us digg it up. So there is a malware that meets all of these requirements:
a) Infects a system by simply visiting a webpage and clicking harmless looking buttons and links in a recent browser
b) Circumvents the users restricted rights and gains administrative / system rights
c) Infects the machine without any user interaction
d) is not detected by AV software
Yes? No? Which threat is it, I'd like to know, please provide a link. Or maybe... you are a little bit blinded by your hatred against everything Microsoft?
I can understand that you can't make a software secure against a poorly chosen password from a dumb user. But I won't accept a software that allow buffer overrun to compromise it's security! Or one that open port for poorly protected service for all internet to access without the knowledge of the user that it even existed!( or worst, the user know about it, but have no way to prevent it short of disconnecting from the internet!
You seem to have red the document....
YMMD. And you are right, this about sums it up.
So could someone with some knowledge please actually READ the darned document and say something relevant about it?
To me it looks like common sense practices:
- Make the software so it could work without administration priviledges except for certain actions. It should work under UAC with a non administrative account. To me this makes sense. 90 % of all security problems in Windows > XP are gone once you don't work with administrative priviledges, IIRC.
- Software is not allowed to make the system more insecure without the users consent. No Firewallchanges, no new ports or services, no enabling of services without the users consent
- don't use code which is already proven to be insecure
- etc.
About the rants securitywise: It is not like everything M$ made in the last decade was a step in the wrong direction.
- starting with XP, the whole enduser system was 32 bit and used a real security model with different types of priviledges. It was a real hell to work as a user without administrative rights, but it was possible.
- starting with XP SP2, they implemented a tool to watch if the system has some basic secure settings, the firewall was activated by default and M$ nagged every user to use an AV-product, which makes sense (as a last line of defense).
- starting with Vista, the user still has administrative rights by default, but UAC tries to minimize the threat. The side effect: In order to work under UAC, the software must ask nicely for adminnistrative rights for certain tasks. Thus software generally is more fit to work without administrative rights.
- M$ made MSE available, which *is* a good free AV-product according to different tests. Avira might be as good, but its Nagscreen every day is really annoying...
- With Win 7, UAC works better and new users are non-admin by default
I completely see your point about the insecure bullshit they did before XP SP2 to all end users or the ways in how they tried to maintain their monopoly. But to me a Windows system is not per se insecure provided someone uses some basic precautions:
- Keep software and OS up to date (PSI?)
OKOK, it is far more easy to keep a standard Linux up to date than the standard Windows because every company uses it's own update mechanism. But it is possible...
- Don't work with administrative rights
No Linux user would work with administrative rights permanently, so...
- Use strong passwords in all sensitive areas
NAT, Adminpasswort, Serverpasswords,...
- Use your brain before installing software or typing in your administrator's user credentials
Helps...
- Use your brain on links
Helps..
- As a last line of defense (not he only one) use an AV-product
And yes, I know that linux is more secure for a lot of reasons. But ignoring free guidelines like the one from M$ to develop more secure code for Windows sounds strange to me. It might be that there are better recommendations, but isn't it worth a read until someone comes up with arguments why this document is stupid and not worth reading?
The Chaos Computer Club accepts suggestions for a "safe" voting computer. Send it in...
1) There are 5+ people inside the voting room at all times. The are shown the empty box, they are shown the plomp to seal it.
They control it all the time. They are from different parties and there are some additional helpers.
A box that one could turn into a chess computer in seconds without anybody noticing is far less secure that the good old system were everyone looks out for everyone else.